Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts v. Attorney General of Texas and the Dallas Morning News, Ltd.
354 S.W.3d 336
Tex.2010Background
- Dallas Morning News sought a copy of the Comptroller’s payroll database of state employees under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA).
- Comptroller disclosed most fields but redacted birth dates under Government Code § 552.101 (confidential by law).
- Attorney General issued opinions discussing § 552.101 and § 552.102 (privacy) and noted identity-theft concerns.
- Lower courts (trial court and court of appeals) had ruled for disclosure or limited privacy protections; the Comptroller urged withholding.
- Court held that, under the unique circumstances, birth dates may be withheld under § 552.102; dissent argued against importing § 552.102 balancing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether birth dates are confidential under § 552.101 | Comptroller—birth dates confidential by judicial decision (invasion of privacy). | News/AG—no confidential status; disclosure serves open-government aims. | Birth dates are not confidential under § 552.101; majority adopts § 552.102 balancing. |
| Whether § 552.102’s privacy exemption applies via balancing | (Comptroller) § 552.102 applies; balancing test appropriate. | Court should apply § 552.101; no balancing under § 552.102. | The Court adopts a Rose-style balancing analysis under § 552.102 for third-party privacy. |
| Public interest vs. third-party privacy in disclosure | Disclosures aid accountability; privacy interests secondary. | Privacy interests outweigh minimal public interest in birth dates. | Privacy interests substantially outweigh negligible public interest; birth dates exempt under § 552.102. |
| Scope of third-party privacy interests and waiver/notice | Third-party privacy protections justify withholding; notice compliance matters. | Proper balancing and statutory framework support withholding; notice not fatal. | Courts consider third-party interests consistent with statutory protections; withholding upheld. |
| Attorney’s fees stance under PIA and Declaratory Judgment Act | News seeks fees under § 552.323(b) and DJA; News substantially prevailed. | Comptroller prevailed on privacy issue; fees not warranted. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; fees denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352 (U.S. 1976) (balancing test for private/public privacy interests in Exemption 6)
- Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. Department of Justice, 489 U.S. 749 (U.S. 1989) (privacy vs. public interest in FOIA Exemption 6)
- Industrial Foundation of the South v. Texas Industrial Accident Bd., 540 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. 1976) (adopts privacy balancing framework for § 552.101/§ 552.102 context)
- Hubert v. Harte-Hanks Texas Newspapers, Inc., 652 S.W.2d 546 (Tex.App.—Austin 1983) (held balancing test applicable under § 552.102 (disputed))
- U.S. Department of State v. Washington Post Co., 456 U.S. 595 (U.S. 1982) (privacy/right to information in personnel files; Rose cited)
- Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (U.S. 2004) (public-interest standard for privacy exemptions; requirement of substantial public interest)